Irshad Ahmad vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development

respondents and Ms. Pallavi Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 - Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur, District Barabanki.

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned show cause notie No.3596/9-1-2025-1823318 dated 13.08.2025 issued by the State Government whereby the financial and administrative powers, functions duties petitioner working 'Chairman'/President, Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur, District Barabanki have been seized with immediate effect as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition ; (ii). issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the impugned show cause notice dated 13.08.2025 and not to take any consequential actions to the detriment to the petitioner." 2 WRIC No. 8608 of 2025

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a complaint by one Asad Abbasi was made to the Hon'ble Minister, Department of Urban Development on 18.03.2024 alleging financial mismanagement and procedural irregularities regarding the development work being done in Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur, District Barabanki.

4. The State Government by its letter dated 30.04.2024 directed the District Magistrate, Barabanki to get an enquiry conducted in respect to the complaint and submit the report. In pursuance of such letter, the District Magistrate, Barabanki constituted a three Member Enquiry Committee of District Development Officer, Senior Treasury Officer and Joint Magistrate/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur, District- Barabanki.

5. The three Member Enquiry Committee submitted its report on 11.06.2024 to the District Magistrate, Barabanki recording a finding that allegations were mostly against the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur, District- Barabanki, who had violated the Rules and Regulations and committed financial irregularities.

6. The District Magistrate, Barabanki submitted the report of the 03 Member Enquiry Committee the State Government on 13.06.2024 and recommended that departmental proceedings be initiated not only against Mr. Vinay Shankar Awasthi, Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, but also against the petitioner, Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur, District-Barabanki.

7. On the basis of such letter dated 13.06.2024, the State Government issued notice to the petitioner seeking his explanation within 15 days in respect of the recommendation made by the District Magistrate, Barabanki failing which action would be taken against the petitioner under Section 48 of The Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (for short ‘Act, 1916’).

8. In pursuance of notice issued by the State Government dated 31.07.2024, the petitioner submitted his reply on 29.08.2024 denying any involvement in any irregularity.

9. The State Government forwarded the reply of the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Barabanki for his comments thereon. The District Magistrate, Barabanki in turn asked the Deputy Collector, Barabanki to examine the reply as submitted. The reply was examined by the Deputy Collector and she submitted her report on 13.11.2024. 3 WRIC No. 8608 of 2025

10. The District Magistrate, Barabanki, by a covering letter dated 14.11.2024 submitted the report of the Deputy Collector to the State Government and also recommended that the reply of the petitioner be rejected as false and baseless. The State Government thereafter asked the petitioner to appear on

16.12.2024 before the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department- respondent no. 2 for personal hearing.

11. The petitioner appeared before the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department-respondent No.2 along with his written reply denying any wrong doing on his part. He requested that the enquiry proceedings initiated against him be dropped as it is in violation of various Government Orders issued by the State Government from time to time as for e.g. the Government Order dated 05.10.2009 issued by the then Chief Secretary, asking the District Magistrate himself to conduct an enquiry in the matter of proceedings to be initiated under Section 48 of the Act, 1916.

12. After his reply, the District Magistrate, Barabanki was asked to conduct an enquiry himself. He however, again constituted a two-Member Committee of Additional Magistrate-III, Barabanki and Financial Advisor, District Panchayat, Barabanki. Such two-Member Committee was asked to examine the reply of the petitioner dated 13.12.2024 submitted to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department. The two Member Committee after examining the reply submitted its report on 18.06.2025 to the District Magistrate, Barabanki recommending that the reply of the petitioner be rejected. The District Magistrate, Barabanki on the basis of two-Member Committee report submitted its own recommendation/report on 23.06.2025 to the State Government.

13. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Sri Vinay Shankar Awasthi, Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur, District-Barabanki were continuing and the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report that only one charge was partially found. Such report was submitted on 08.05.2025 by the Enquiry Officer with respect to Sri Vinay Shankar Awasthi, Executive Officer who in fact had been initially implicated by the complainant in his complaint dated 18.03.2024.

14. Now the petitioner has received the impugned Show Cause Notice dated

13.08.2025 whereby the petitioner has been asked to submit his reply and 4 WRIC No. 8608 of 2025 also his financial and administrative powers working as 'Chairman’, Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur, District-Barabanki have been seized with immediate effect in terms of the Proviso of Section 48 of the Act, 1916.

15. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are at least two judgments of this Court which require the State Government to apply its mind to any report submitted by the District Magistrate with respect to action initiated under Section 48 of the Act, 1916. He has referred to a Larger Bench decision rendered in the case of Hafiz Ataullah Ansari, Chairman vs. State of U.P. and another (2010) SCC Online All 2116 (FB) where the Larger Bench was considering the question regarding entitlement of the President of a Municipality to an opportunity of hearing before issuance of Show Cause Notice under Section 48 (2) of the Act and the Proviso thereof and in case, such opportunity of hearing is necessary, to what extent such opportunity should be given.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Paragraph Nos. 77, 84, 90, 113, 117 and 143 of the judgment. Paragraph No. 143 is being quoted hereinbelow: “143. Our conclusions are as follows: (a) There can be proceeding for removal of president under section 48 (2) of the Municipalities Act without ceasing his financial and administrative power under its proviso; (b) The following conditions must be satisfied before cessation of financial and administrative powers of a president of a Municipality can take place: (i) The explanation or point of view or the version of the affected president should be obtained regarding charges and should be considered before recording satisfaction and issuing notice/order under proviso to section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act; (ii) The State Government should be objectively satisfied on the basis of relevant material that: • The allegations do not appear to be groundless; and • The president is prima facie guilty of any of the grounds under section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act. (iii) The show cause notice must contain the charges against the president; (iv) The show cause notice should also indicate the material on which the objective satisfaction for reason to believe is based as well as the evidence by which charges against the President are to be proved. Though in most of the cases they may be the same; (c) It is not necessary to pass separate order under proviso to section 48 (2) of the Municipalities Act. It could be included in the notice satisfying the other conditions under proviso to section 48 (2). In fact it is not even necessary. It comes into operation by the Statute itself on issuance of a valid notice under proviso to section 48 (2) of the Municipalities Act. 5 WRIC No. 8608 of 2025 (d) In case a notice/order ceasing financial and administrative powers is held to be invalid on any ground then this does not mean that the proceeding of removal are also invalid. They have to continue and taken to their logical end. The proceeding to remove can come to an end only if the charges on their face or even taken to be proved do not make out a case for removal under section 48 (2) of the Municipalities Act. (e) It is not necessary to involve the president with the process of collecting material or give President the copies of the material before asking his explanation or point of view or version of the president to the charges. (f) In the present case, the impugned notice/order cannot be invalidated on the following grounds that: (i) The explanation or point of view of the petitioner to the charge was not obtained (as it was asked). However, we have not considered, whether his explanation was considered or not; (ii) The letters of the SDM and DM were not given to the petitioner before obtaining petitioner's explanation or his point of view to the charges as this was unnecessary at that stage. In case these copies were not given along with show cause notice by the State Government, it is open to the petitioner to ask for the same and then file an additional reply.”

17. It has been submitted on the basis of such observations that the State Government should be objectively satisfied on the basis of relevant material that the allegations do not appear to be groundless and the President is prima facie., guilty of any of the grounds, under Section 48 (2) of the Act, 1916 and the Show Cause Notice must contain the charges against the President and it should also indicate the material on the basis of which objective satisfaction for reason to believe is based as well as the evidence by which the charges against the President are to be proved.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the Paragraph Nos.1, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28 and 29 of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Nand Kumar Maurya vs. State of U.P. and others [2022 (3) ADJ 472 (DB)].

19. Placing reliance upon the Full Bench decision in Hafiz Ataullah Ansari (Supra), the Division Bench had observed that prior to passing the order for cessation of financial and administrative powers, the State Government has to objectively consider the material and the reply of the Chairperson which should record reasons for proceeding under the Proviso to Section 48 (4) of the Act.

20. The report of the District Magistrate, Barabanki and the Committee constituted to enquire into allegations itself cannot be a ground to proceed under Section 48 (2) of the Act. The State Government is obliged under law to independently consider all the material available before it, including the report 6 WRIC No. 8608 of 2025 of the District Magistrate, Barabanki and the reply of the petitioner and then come to a conclusion regarding sufficiency of material for ordering cessation of financial and administrative powers of the Chairperson.

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read out the Show Cause Notice that has been issued to him impugned in this writ petition and he has made out a case specifically with regard to lack of charges being framed on the basis of inquiry report submitted to the State Government. It has also been pointed out that no independent application of mind had taken place. The Show Cause Notice is an exercise in open way cut and paste.

22. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, on the other hand has read out the concluding portion of the order impugned which refers to "पिर्षण आख्यान" and the conclusion arrived at that in the purchase of dustbin and water cooler, the procedure prescribed for issuance of tender notices has been bye-passed and purchase has been made on the basis of quotations alone taking from private vendors. No payment regarding the supply made has also been done.

23. However, Shri Rajesh Tiwari, has failed to point out any charge framed in pursuance of such conclusion arrived at. It appears that the State Government has taken the complaint, which has been made point-wise, and which has been considered by two Committees at the District Magistrate level to be the charge against the petitioner.

24. However, we are of the considered opinion that the State Government should have considered the reply of the petitioner which he has submitted to the State Government and then objectively considered the material on record, instead of quoting extensively from the two Enquiry reports submitted against the petitioner by the District Authorities. Even the language used in the Show Cause Notice is the same as that of the Enquiry report submitted to the State Government.

25. Since the Show Cause Notice does not satisfy the requirements that have been specifically laid out in the Full Bench decision in the case of Hafiz Ataullah Ansari (Supra), we feel that the Show Cause Notice is liable to be set aside. It is set aside. Consequently, the order of cessation of financial and administrative powers of the Chairman are also set aside.

26. The State Government is directed to issue a fresh Show Cause Notice to the petitioner within 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order indicating 7 WRIC No. 8608 of 2025 clearly the consequential charges that the State Government proposes against the petitioner on which it needs specific replies from the petitioner.

27. The said show cause notice shall also indicate the objective satisfaction with respect to every charge separately framed and also in conclusion should specifically express its opinion as to why cessation of financial and administrative powers of the Chairperson should be resorted to.

28. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. September 3, 2025 Pks (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

respondents and Ms. Pallavi Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 - Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur, District Barabanki.

2. This petition has been filed with the following main prayers:- "(i). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned show cause notie No.3596/9-1-2025-1823318 dated 13.08.2025 issued by the State Government whereby the financial and administrative powers, functions duties petitioner working 'Chairman'/President, Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur, District Barabanki have been seized with immediate effect as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition ; (ii). issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to give effect to the impugned show cause notice dated 13.08.2025 and not to take any consequential actions to the detriment to the petitioner." 2 WRIC No. 8608 of 2025

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a complaint by one Asad Abbasi was made to the Hon'ble Minister, Department of Urban Development on 18.03.2024 alleging financial mismanagement and procedural irregularities regarding the development work being done in Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur, District Barabanki.

4. The State Government by its letter dated 30.04.2024 directed the District Magistrate, Barabanki to get an enquiry conducted in respect to the complaint and submit the report. In pursuance of such letter, the District Magistrate, Barabanki constituted a three Member Enquiry Committee of District Development Officer, Senior Treasury Officer and Joint Magistrate/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fatehpur, District- Barabanki.

5. The three Member Enquiry Committee submitted its report on 11.06.2024 to the District Magistrate, Barabanki recording a finding that allegations were mostly against the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur, District- Barabanki, who had violated the Rules and Regulations and committed financial irregularities.

6. The District Magistrate, Barabanki submitted the report of the 03 Member Enquiry Committee the State Government on 13.06.2024 and recommended that departmental proceedings be initiated not only against Mr. Vinay Shankar Awasthi, Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, but also against the petitioner, Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur, District-Barabanki.

7. On the basis of such letter dated 13.06.2024, the State Government issued notice to the petitioner seeking his explanation within 15 days in respect of the recommendation made by the District Magistrate, Barabanki failing which action would be taken against the petitioner under Section 48 of The Uttar Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1916 (for short ‘Act, 1916’).

8. In pursuance of notice issued by the State Government dated 31.07.2024, the petitioner submitted his reply on 29.08.2024 denying any involvement in any irregularity.

9. The State Government forwarded the reply of the petitioner to the District Magistrate, Barabanki for his comments thereon. The District Magistrate, Barabanki in turn asked the Deputy Collector, Barabanki to examine the reply as submitted. The reply was examined by the Deputy Collector and she submitted her report on 13.11.2024. 3 WRIC No. 8608 of 2025

10. The District Magistrate, Barabanki, by a covering letter dated 14.11.2024 submitted the report of the Deputy Collector to the State Government and also recommended that the reply of the petitioner be rejected as false and baseless. The State Government thereafter asked the petitioner to appear on

16.12.2024 before the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department- respondent no. 2 for personal hearing.

11. The petitioner appeared before the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department-respondent No.2 along with his written reply denying any wrong doing on his part. He requested that the enquiry proceedings initiated against him be dropped as it is in violation of various Government Orders issued by the State Government from time to time as for e.g. the Government Order dated 05.10.2009 issued by the then Chief Secretary, asking the District Magistrate himself to conduct an enquiry in the matter of proceedings to be initiated under Section 48 of the Act, 1916.

12. After his reply, the District Magistrate, Barabanki was asked to conduct an enquiry himself. He however, again constituted a two-Member Committee of Additional Magistrate-III, Barabanki and Financial Advisor, District Panchayat, Barabanki. Such two-Member Committee was asked to examine the reply of the petitioner dated 13.12.2024 submitted to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department. The two Member Committee after examining the reply submitted its report on 18.06.2025 to the District Magistrate, Barabanki recommending that the reply of the petitioner be rejected. The District Magistrate, Barabanki on the basis of two-Member Committee report submitted its own recommendation/report on 23.06.2025 to the State Government.

13. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meantime, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against Sri Vinay Shankar Awasthi, Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur, District-Barabanki were continuing and the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report that only one charge was partially found. Such report was submitted on 08.05.2025 by the Enquiry Officer with respect to Sri Vinay Shankar Awasthi, Executive Officer who in fact had been initially implicated by the complainant in his complaint dated 18.03.2024.

14. Now the petitioner has received the impugned Show Cause Notice dated

13.08.2025 whereby the petitioner has been asked to submit his reply and 4 WRIC No. 8608 of 2025 also his financial and administrative powers working as 'Chairman’, Nagar Panchayat, Fatehpur, District-Barabanki have been seized with immediate effect in terms of the Proviso of Section 48 of the Act, 1916.

15. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there are at least two judgments of this Court which require the State Government to apply its mind to any report submitted by the District Magistrate with respect to action initiated under Section 48 of the Act, 1916. He has referred to a Larger Bench decision rendered in the case of Hafiz Ataullah Ansari, Chairman vs. State of U.P. and another (2010) SCC Online All 2116 (FB) where the Larger Bench was considering the question regarding entitlement of the President of a Municipality to an opportunity of hearing before issuance of Show Cause Notice under Section 48 (2) of the Act and the Proviso thereof and in case, such opportunity of hearing is necessary, to what extent such opportunity should be given.

16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Paragraph Nos. 77, 84, 90, 113, 117 and 143 of the judgment. Paragraph No. 143 is being quoted hereinbelow: “143. Our conclusions are as follows: (a) There can be proceeding for removal of president under section 48 (2) of the Municipalities Act without ceasing his financial and administrative power under its proviso; (b) The following conditions must be satisfied before cessation of financial and administrative powers of a president of a Municipality can take place: (i) The explanation or point of view or the version of the affected president should be obtained regarding charges and should be considered before recording satisfaction and issuing notice/order under proviso to section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act; (ii) The State Government should be objectively satisfied on the basis of relevant material that: • The allegations do not appear to be groundless; and • The president is prima facie guilty of any of the grounds under section 48(2) of the Municipalities Act. (iii) The show cause notice must contain the charges against the president; (iv) The show cause notice should also indicate the material on which the objective satisfaction for reason to believe is based as well as the evidence by which charges against the President are to be proved. Though in most of the cases they may be the same; (c) It is not necessary to pass separate order under proviso to section 48 (2) of the Municipalities Act. It could be included in the notice satisfying the other conditions under proviso to section 48 (2). In fact it is not even necessary. It comes into operation by the Statute itself on issuance of a valid notice under proviso to section 48 (2) of the Municipalities Act. 5 WRIC No. 8608 of 2025 (d) In case a notice/order ceasing financial and administrative powers is held to be invalid on any ground then this does not mean that the proceeding of removal are also invalid. They have to continue and taken to their logical end. The proceeding to remove can come to an end only if the charges on their face or even taken to be proved do not make out a case for removal under section 48 (2) of the Municipalities Act. (e) It is not necessary to involve the president with the process of collecting material or give President the copies of the material before asking his explanation or point of view or version of the president to the charges. (f) In the present case, the impugned notice/order cannot be invalidated on the following grounds that: (i) The explanation or point of view of the petitioner to the charge was not obtained (as it was asked). However, we have not considered, whether his explanation was considered or not; (ii) The letters of the SDM and DM were not given to the petitioner before obtaining petitioner's explanation or his point of view to the charges as this was unnecessary at that stage. In case these copies were not given along with show cause notice by the State Government, it is open to the petitioner to ask for the same and then file an additional reply.”

17. It has been submitted on the basis of such observations that the State Government should be objectively satisfied on the basis of relevant material that the allegations do not appear to be groundless and the President is prima facie., guilty of any of the grounds, under Section 48 (2) of the Act, 1916 and the Show Cause Notice must contain the charges against the President and it should also indicate the material on the basis of which objective satisfaction for reason to believe is based as well as the evidence by which the charges against the President are to be proved.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon the Paragraph Nos.1, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28 and 29 of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Nand Kumar Maurya vs. State of U.P. and others [2022 (3) ADJ 472 (DB)].

19. Placing reliance upon the Full Bench decision in Hafiz Ataullah Ansari (Supra), the Division Bench had observed that prior to passing the order for cessation of financial and administrative powers, the State Government has to objectively consider the material and the reply of the Chairperson which should record reasons for proceeding under the Proviso to Section 48 (4) of the Act.

20. The report of the District Magistrate, Barabanki and the Committee constituted to enquire into allegations itself cannot be a ground to proceed under Section 48 (2) of the Act. The State Government is obliged under law to independently consider all the material available before it, including the report 6 WRIC No. 8608 of 2025 of the District Magistrate, Barabanki and the reply of the petitioner and then come to a conclusion regarding sufficiency of material for ordering cessation of financial and administrative powers of the Chairperson.

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read out the Show Cause Notice that has been issued to him impugned in this writ petition and he has made out a case specifically with regard to lack of charges being framed on the basis of inquiry report submitted to the State Government. It has also been pointed out that no independent application of mind had taken place. The Show Cause Notice is an exercise in open way cut and paste.

22. Shri Rajesh Tiwari, on the other hand has read out the concluding portion of the order impugned which refers to "पिर्षण आख्यान" and the conclusion arrived at that in the purchase of dustbin and water cooler, the procedure prescribed for issuance of tender notices has been bye-passed and purchase has been made on the basis of quotations alone taking from private vendors. No payment regarding the supply made has also been done.

23. However, Shri Rajesh Tiwari, has failed to point out any charge framed in pursuance of such conclusion arrived at. It appears that the State Government has taken the complaint, which has been made point-wise, and which has been considered by two Committees at the District Magistrate level to be the charge against the petitioner.

24. However, we are of the considered opinion that the State Government should have considered the reply of the petitioner which he has submitted to the State Government and then objectively considered the material on record, instead of quoting extensively from the two Enquiry reports submitted against the petitioner by the District Authorities. Even the language used in the Show Cause Notice is the same as that of the Enquiry report submitted to the State Government.

25. Since the Show Cause Notice does not satisfy the requirements that have been specifically laid out in the Full Bench decision in the case of Hafiz Ataullah Ansari (Supra), we feel that the Show Cause Notice is liable to be set aside. It is set aside. Consequently, the order of cessation of financial and administrative powers of the Chairman are also set aside.

26. The State Government is directed to issue a fresh Show Cause Notice to the petitioner within 15 days from the receipt of copy of this order indicating 7 WRIC No. 8608 of 2025 clearly the consequential charges that the State Government proposes against the petitioner on which it needs specific replies from the petitioner.

27. The said show cause notice shall also indicate the objective satisfaction with respect to every charge separately framed and also in conclusion should specifically express its opinion as to why cessation of financial and administrative powers of the Chairperson should be resorted to.

28. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. September 3, 2025 Pks (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench